385 Comments

Sorry to hear that. An example of what we in the USA have to look forward to unless we can get the tyrant-adjacent Democrats out of office.

Expand full comment

true.. all the except the specifying the scumbag dems. you dont think the scumbag repugnants wont follow through , given they are a uniparty, BOTH fully owned and operated by our lovely oligarchy?? come on, dont be so naive.

the fReEdOm and LiBeRtY they rage about.. isnt YOUR freedom of liberty.. its explicitly THEIRS, the oligarchy. and the price for their freedom, comes out of all our hides

Expand full comment

AG Garland and Director Wray are channeling the FSB. In front of our eyes, they investigate and prosecute the political threat, Donald Trump, who LIKE NO OTHER has exposed their anti-democratic and anti-Constitutional machinations.

It is stunning that Donald Trump has not surrendered in the face of the power of the DoJ.

Trump 2024 a defender of dissent.

Expand full comment

Agree completely.

I fell in love with Trump in 2016 when he refused to be intimidated by the "Trump has no chance" drumbeat at the end of the campaign; he worked as hard as ever right through to the end. Especially for that reason I was thrilled he won. And he hasn't let up since. I still see him as the underdog, and I will not betray him!

Expand full comment

Trump Indictment Threatens America and First Amendment

Expand full comment

Trump threatens America, the First Amendment, and all the rest of the Constitution. The indictment is just one small way of holding him accountable for some of what he did: fake elector scheme, intimidating state and local election officials, trying to get Pence to violate his oath to uphold the Constitutional

Expand full comment

I don't think trying to persuade someone to change his name is a threat to First Amendment.

Expand full comment

Burden is on the government to prove Protected Speech is criminal, that there was a criminal conspiracy (unnamed defendants), and that mens rea - criminal intent was the basis of his speech and actions in advocacy for his Presidency.

Expand full comment

The speech is not even mentioned in the indictment

Expand full comment

Agree, except at least with the House Repubs there's at least a **little** movement in the right direction. Impeachments need to happen yesterday.

Expand full comment

Impeachment is meaningless now. Criminal indictment is now also apparently fair game for political opponents. Next step is pretty scary…

Expand full comment
founding
Aug 2, 2023·edited Aug 2, 2023

None of these attempts have any grounds in actual law or the Constitution, though they do make for tantalizing chyrons and endless repetitions of vacuous catch phrases -- "The walls are closing in!" -- to distract the proles from the truly sinister machinations going on in the shadows. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Expand full comment

"Bombshell !!"

Expand full comment

We are at that “next step“, I’m afraid. America lost the moral high ground long ago.

Expand full comment

No doubt.

Expand full comment
founding

Agreed. The GOP is effectively leaderless, serving only as a feeble and unreliable opposition to totalitarian Democrat rule. They have no goals or strategies only empty soundbites, mostly whinging about meaningless culture war distractions which are reliable ballot box losers for the right.

Consider the first four letters of "culture war" -- cult.

Expand full comment

Three days before yesterday.

Expand full comment

"Republicans" guaranteed Trump "impeachments." In Nov. 2018 midterms Paul Ryan allowed 38 races to run with no Republican on the ballot. Only 3 races lacked a dem. Paul Ryan wanted to give House back to dems, which he did. (Until 1994, the House was controlled by dems. for 40 straight years). .....https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_elections_without_a_Democratic_or_Republican_candidate,_2018

Expand full comment

'repugnants', 'rethuglicans', real original stuff. Great material. like 'demonrats' and whatnot; accomplishes nothing. Go comment on The Hill or WaPo.

Expand full comment

Folks: just follow the power & money. Party affiliation is meaningless.

Expand full comment

Keep believing that you can change things by voting for tweedle Dum or tweedle Dee, that's what the ruling classes want.

Expand full comment

RFK Jr and Vivek seem to be the only people interested in freeing Assange.

A good litmus test that even Trump failed.

Expand full comment
Aug 2, 2023·edited Aug 2, 2023

FWIW, Marjorie Taylor-Greene expressed support for Assange some time ago. Whether she's still talking about it I don't know.

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-demands-pardons-for-julian-assange-and-edward-snowden/

Expand full comment

Finally, something I can like about Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Expand full comment

LOL

Expand full comment

I don't see many republicans clamoring to free Julian Assange...

Expand full comment

The UniParty does not do criticism well.

The Biden administration makes noise about Russia holding Evan Gershkovich, but does nothing about Julian Assange, or Gonzalo Lira (American citizen) held by Ukraine. Alina Lipp (German) faces years in German prison for her reporting from Donbas. Many journalists, including Aaron Mate, and ANYONE who speaks out against the Zelensky regime, are now on his "death list" (link enclosed): medium.com/@deborahlarmstrong/mirotvorets-removes-american-names-96de6a7a2a12

Both Russia and Ukraine have been responsible for many deaths of reporters (more than on this list): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

Expand full comment

Assange is not about transparency. He is about leveraging information

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

Not only that, they booted him out of the embassy on Trump's watch. And Pompeo was head of CIA when they were talking about assassinating him.

Expand full comment
founding
Aug 2, 2023·edited Aug 2, 2023

The FBI has become, for all intents and purposes, the American FSB. While the FSB is simply a rebranded KGB.

edit: someone already beat me to the comparison. So it must be pretty obvious.

Expand full comment

No one is even close to this:

Trump has mocked the First Amendment’s right to freedom of religion by calling for a ban on Muslims from entering the country and criticized those who believe in the freedom of speech as “foolish people.” He has endorsed attacks on protesters and the imprisonment of people who burn the flag. He has attempted to silence and marginalize his critics by forcing staff, and even interns, to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements and revoking, or threatening to revoke, the security clearances of former administration officials. His administration has also proposed to dramatically limit the right to protest near the White House and on the National Mall.

And Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t stand for the freedom of the press. As a presidential candidate, he told supporters he would “open up our libel laws” to sue journalists. “We’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” he promised.

Expand full comment

The EO detailing heightened security requirements for travel was not a Muslim ban. There were countries affected by the travel restrictions that were not Muslim. Any country affected had weak to non-existent criteria to allow travel. You bought the MSM scam around "ban on Muslims".

Trump's opinion about protestor's committing arson, looting, and rioting along with flag burning is protected speech. Federal criminal laws are set by Congress not the President.

Considering the number of classified leaks from the Obama White House Resistance holdovers, it is no wonder that non-disclosure agreements and loss of security clearances were warranted to stop the illegal activity. The DOJ should have been prosecuting violations.

As far as the proposal to limit the area in front of the White House and Lafayette along with National Park Service charging protestors for the trash they leave and damages, the proposal was withdrawn. The new fence that was installed mitigated the security concerns. The Park Service still has to clean up the trash.

Trump's view of the MSM as the fake news media is well known. Most Americans do not trust the MSM because they report the narrative with minimal regard for the truth. We live that fact everyday. If your opinion is that MSM is reliable and accurate then you are part of a dwindling minority of people. Libel laws are covered by 28 US Code and these are established by Congress not the President. Trump's idea to modify the libel laws are similar to discussions to rewrite the Section 230 protections in response to rampant violations to suppress speech neither of which happened.

There is more than one way to view your allegations.

Expand full comment

Thanks. I’m aware you can apparently view my “allegations” in as many perspectives as someone’s imagination allows them. And I’m not spouting an “Official Narrative” which is the common retort for anyone who doesn’t say Trump > Biden. I don’t and haven’t got my info from MSM. Ive been a subscriber here since Taibbi first moved over here. And I’ve been reading him since the Exile. Maybe you can refute these point by point:

Trump has:

1. Praised a violent attack on a reporter by Montana Rep. Greg Gianforte.

2. Presided over a Justice Department investigation in which years’ worth of email and phone records belonging to a New York Times reporter were seized in connection with a leak investigation.

3. Threatened to change libel laws to make it easier to sue publishers and news organizations following the release of an unflattering book.

4. Threatened legal action against a journalist and publisher over a book that includes critical statements about him.

5. Demanded the Washington Post fire a reporter over an inaccurate tweet about the crowd size at a Trump rally, which the reporter apologized for and deleted.

6. Urged people to sue ABC News over a retracted report, which Trump claimed caused the stock market to fall and investors to lose money.

7. Said it is “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write” in a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

9. Threatened to cancel the broadcast licenses of media companies that offer negative coverage of him.

9. Had the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, call on ESPN to fire Jemele Hill for criticizing him.

10. Overseen a Justice Department review of policies for subpoenaing media organizations in an effort to crack down on both whistleblowers and journalists. As of November 2017, investigations of leaks by the department reportedly grew 800 percent under Jeff Sessions.

11. Pledged to “fight the #FakeNews” with a Polish leader hostile to press freedom.

12. Attacked reporters while speaking with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has fostered a climate of violence against journalists.

13. Reportedly asked then-FBI Director James Comey to jail reporters who publish classified information.

14. Tasked his former chief of staff with looking into changing the country’s libel laws.

15. Explored the prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing CIA and State Department materials.

16. Threatened to pull credentials of reporters who write “negative” stories about him while admitting he considers negative media coverage to be “Fake”: “91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”

17. Called for a federal investigation into “Saturday Night Live” after watching a rerun of an episode parodying him.

18. Unsuccessfully tried to rescind the press credentials of CNN journalist Jim Acosta.

19. Said that he is “entitled” to have “great” stories published about him in the New York Times.

20. Lauded Brazil’s authoritarian president for denouncing the “fake news.”

The fact that he didn’t act on some of his threats because he and his administration were too dumb to know that you couldn’t legally do so, or he was too lazy doesn’t take away from the intent. His intent was to get rid of anything that said anything bad about him. Like a baby.

Expand full comment

Take a step back and look at what you have written. Common sense Americans judge politicians by what they do and not their bluster. You are seriously offended by other people's opinions. You would censor someone because they said something that was contrary to your sensibilities.

You are the problem. My sense is that you are part of the crowd that says "words are violence." Why do you engage in slurs and ad hominem attacks? Are you so intolerant and bigoted that you would suspend First Amendment Rights of people who don't think like you.

Expand full comment

This is what I said in my last paragraph that directly addresses your statement:

“The fact that he didn’t act on some of his threats because he and his administration were too dumb to know that you couldn’t legally do so, or he was too lazy doesn’t take away from the intent. His intent was to get rid of anything that said anything bad about him. Like a baby.”

He TRIED to enact these policies.

Expand full comment

What's it smell like that far up Trump's colon?

Expand full comment

The uneducated or ignorant become desperate and resort to ad hominem attacks because they are mentally bankrupt and unable to persuade. They try to bully and begin with name calling and slurs which are soon followed by calls of racism and every other phobia. Instead of civility and discussion, they hope that by acting deranged, they will silence different viewpoints. We have all seen and experienced people like you.

Expand full comment

There is no point making rational arguments that deviate from the Official Narrative; it may help you deal with the dissonance, but you will be labeled a "Trump apologist" or a "Putin Puppet".

To me the loss of life was much bigger, and thus more important, in the George Floyd protests (which I and most supported) than in the Capitol Protests (by about 25 to 1). But I am peculiar that way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled

As Thomas Jefferson noted about the ARMED Shays' Rebellion: "...what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon, and pacify them. "

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

'you will be labeled a "Trump apologist" or a "Putin Puppet"'

...or just an idiot.

Idiot.

The capitol riot involved far fewer people than the George Floyd protests. So comparing raw death counts is just stupid. More importantly, though, death count is just a red herring here. Remember "where's Nancy"? Jan. 6 was an assault on, and attempt to overthrow, the US government, not a "warning" to take "the people" seriously. Comparing that to the Shays rebellion is even stupider. If the rioters had succeeded in their goals, many MANY more people would have died in the civil unrest that inevitably follows a successful coup. The Shays rebellion was about a taxation and debt crisis, not an attempt to overthrow the government.

And oh, by the way, Jefferson lived in a time when people still settled their differences via dueling. We've come a long way since then.

Expand full comment

Trump is no prize, but unlike Biden he did not lock up his political enemies.

The George Floyd protests, and the Kavanaugh hearing protests in the Capitol building, were both like the January 6th Protests, all protected under the First Amendment-- "Congress shall make no law... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances". Violence and destruction of property in protests were virtually ignored by Trump, but Biden appears to have set-up the unarmed "domestic terrorists" on January 6th to imprison harmless political opponents.

The US is becoming more and more like the Corruption Playground of Ukraine.

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

Biden isn't locking up his political enemies. What should the DOJ do, ignore all of Trump's crimes because he's running for election?

The Jan 6th riots are very obviously not protected under the First Amendment. It's the "peaceably" part that's missing, DUH.

"Biden appears to have"

Bullshit. "Appears" to you, because it makes the narrative work in your mind. It's just bullshit.

How stupid can you be?

Expand full comment

Please stop with the disinformation and conspiracy theories. You are citing allegations, not crimes. Legal experts have reviewed the charges and are amazed at the imagination of these prosecutors. The latest example is an attempt to prosecute a thought crime. This would have been material for an SNL show showing the incompetence of prosecutors seriously afflicted with TDS.

The hypocrisy of the left with their denouncement of "mostly peaceful protest" on Jan 6, where they argue for the harshest penalties on anyone who trespassed into the "People's House" versus their payments of bail and participation in the streets with the "Summer of Love" involving arson, looting, rioting, and homicide from "mostly peaceful protestors" burning down police stations, attempting to burn down federal court houses, thousands of injured officers, over 24 dead, civilians assaulted, and billions in damages. The latter conduct fits the description of insurrection.

You are promoting the false narrative that Jan 6 was an insurrection. Show the proof. The FBI has shown that no one brought weapons into the Capitol.

The suppressed video reveals that protestors were let into the Capitol, and some were even escorted around. The more information was uncovered, the more the American people learned it was a protest that went out of control when Capitol police started attacking the crowd, shot an unarmed woman, and beat another woman to death. There was no open investigation into the two homicides. It was all covered up, and the disinformation launched and is still being repeated.

Why did the Democrat Congress lie about Officer Sicknick's death being caused by the protestors when he suffered strokes and died of natural causes the next day?

The stupid thing is people keep repeating the narrative about insurrection, so the disinformation lives on.

Expand full comment

Lol both parties suck

Expand full comment

100% my opinion, for slightly different reasons, but both are mainly interested in maintaining their own power.

Expand full comment

i actually like a lot of local Dem reps and senators in Wisconsin but it's a hard no both for biden and trump in 24! Just disgraceful choices for the electorate.

Expand full comment

' actually like a lot of local Dem reps and senators'

Local politicians are more likely to be honestly trying to help the electorate. As they rise through the party hierarchy, they get more and more dogmatized and invested in the party rather than the electorate. IMO.

Expand full comment

As the overturning of Roe v. Wade illustrates, it's not really a choice between Biden and Trump, but their parties as a whole. The American judicial system is becoming more conservative over time, and failing to elect a Democrat (given our party duopoly) means a Republican will get the chance to extend that trend much further.

Furthermore, I find it amazing that *anyone* with a functioning brain would have a hard time choosing between the two candidates. Your "hard no" is kind of meaningless since we'll end up with one or the other regardless (unless something unexpected happens, which I'm not against).

This isn't a new concept. It's always been a choice between a douche and a turd, but even allowing for that, reality just doesn't adhere to your clean "both sides" narrative. I therefore conclude that either you're deliberately trying to confuse people, or you know absolutely nothing about American politics.

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

'Furthermore, I find it amazing that *anyone* with a functioning brain would have a hard time choosing between the two candidates. Your "hard no" is kind of meaningless since we'll end up with one or the other regardless...'

This statement is kind of meaningless.

Expand full comment

Not really.

- Pretending that "both parties suck" sums up the situation is willfully ignorant.

- Just saying "I don't like either candidate" is pointless since one of them will (presumably) be president. "Hard no" won't prevent the winner from being inaugurated.

Better luck next time.

Expand full comment

'it's not really a choice between Biden and Trump, but their parties as a whole.'

Yes, I agree with this.

Expand full comment

True; however, the tyrant-adjacent Republicans also need to be removed from office.

Expand full comment

They're already doing it in the USA. I'm not sure how this is any different that we've done to countless whistleblowers and now journalists over the years. Russian leaders might be worse, but we're hardly holding back here.

Expand full comment

False equivalence.

Yes, the US has laws which sometimes allow journalists to be prosecuted (that's hardly avoidable); and yes, those laws are sometimes exploited in gray areas in a way that most people would consider abusive and anti-democratic.

In Russia, it's illegal to criticize the military. That's not a small difference.

Expand full comment

First, it's not a false equivalence. Just writing that doesn't make it true. Fact: WE have laws that are supposed to protect against such tyranny and the false equivalency is our continued criticism of another nation while purposely skewing ALL context and often doing worse right here at home despite our supposed constitutionally protected rights. WE just saw the senate pass the NDAA with provisions that continue to criminalize criticism and chucks habeas corpus right out the window in the name i of fight "terrorism" when WE are acting like terrorists in other nation, violated borders on a whim with lies of "protecting U.S. citizens" for nations with no means to invade us and have not threatened us much less had the means to do so. By the way, show me the Russian military bases surrounding us. Show me the Russian sanctions that circle the globe. Russia has it's own problems that have nothing to do with us, but we insist they do by rumor alone. and as for them spying on us? Does that mean we don't do the same to them? Bad news on that front, we brag about how we can and do influence life in Russia while all we can prove is that some FB pages run by Russians exposed our hubris and hypocrisy. I know, how dare they, while we keep tightening the circle around Russia to put our missiles on their doorstep. How dare they not like that.

Expand full comment

It’s not only the Dems. Also, Trump was as tyrant-adjacent as it gets as POTUS. Take a look at history pre Twitter files for some examples.

Expand full comment

Mean tweets are not tyranny.

Expand full comment

I never mentioned tweets. He m wanted to sue his critics for libel for example. Or jail people for burning the flag. Muslim bans. Had staff sign NDA’s Etc.

Expand full comment

OH MY GOD HE MADE THEM SIGN NDA'S!

He "wanted" to sue his critics. He "wanted" to jail people. I have two questions, one did he, you know, actually DO those things? Because Biden is having his opponents arrested, spied upon, and jailed without trial.

Hell he's probably even had folks sign NDA's.

My second question is can you read his mind? Rhetorical as we all know you cannot so you are just baselessly slandering somebody as to his thinking and motivations for partisan political reasons. But you think Trump is the bad person here.

Expand full comment

lol, of course NDAs are the only thing you responded to.

What about:

- Jailing people for burning the flag

- Banning Muslims from entering the country

- Suing critics for libel

"can you read his mind?"

No, but when words come out of his mouth, people can hear those and sort of interpret from them what he intends to do.

Such obscurantist bullshit. I can't even believe I'm wasting my time responding to such low-quality brain leakage.

Expand full comment

"Banning Muslims from entering the country"

"Such obscurantist bullshit" as Muslims were not banned from entering the country. Again with the slander, and yet you are truly convinced Trump is a bad person. Trump isn't running around lying about you, but you do it to him and feel totally justified in this.

Maybe some introspection is in order? Maybe stop just wantonly lying?

Baby steps.

Expand full comment
founding

Trump may be a lot of things, but when did he ever turn down a chance to get it on with the press? Think of all the times he took questions on the way to the helicopter. Daily Covid briefings.* Etc.

*We may have been lied to at the briefings, but it wasn't the politicians who were the most misleading.

Expand full comment

Amazing. I guess literally *anything* Russia does can be spun to make the U.S. look bad.

As a headline, "FSB disappears journalist" kinda takes the wind out of "FBI sends email".

Doubly ironic to call Democrats "tyrant-adjacent" within a day of the Republican frontrunner being indicted for attempting to illegally nullify a democratic election and seize control of the government.

So I guess that makes you "dumb-adjacent". Minus the "adjacent".

Expand full comment

Yeah locking up your most popular opponent for disputing a sketchy election isn't at all tyrannical.

Expand full comment

That would be the case, if everything you wrote there weren't complete bullshit.

"locking up your most popular opponent"

You do understand, I hope, that the whole point of appointing a special counsel is to remove the decision from Biden's hands. What's the alternative? Ignore the crimes Trump has repeatedly confessed to in public and in private recordings? THAT would be corruption of the justice system. Criminals get prosecuted; that's how the system is *supposed* to work.

"disputing"

No. Trump had a legal right to dispute the election in the courts, which he took advantage of to no success. He's been indicted for (among other things) attempting to defraud the government. That's something completely different than "disputing".

"a sketchy election"

No. The only sketchy thing about the 2020 election was Trump.

Trump is a bullshitter, and this is part of his bullshit. He simply cannot admit to being a loser, so the only recourse is to claim he was robbed. There is ZERO, let me repeat ZERO evidence of voter fraud, or any other "irregularities", impacting the result of the election. It just didn't happen, and the fact that dumbshits like you believe it bodes ill for US democracy going forward.

Expand full comment

You are too stupid to argue with. It is not illegal to dispute an election you bootlicking moron.

Expand full comment

The uneducated or ignorant become desperate and resort to ad hominem attacks because they are mentally bankrupt and unable to persuade. They try to bully and begin with name calling and slurs which are soon followed by calls of racism and every other phobia. Instead of civility and discussion, they hope that by acting deranged, they will silence different viewpoints. We have all seen and experienced people like you.

Expand full comment

Trump mocked the First Amendment’s right to freedom of religion by calling for a ban on Muslims from entering the country and criticized those who believe in the freedom of speech as “foolish people.” He has endorsed attacks on protesters and the imprisonment of people who burn the flag. He has attempted to silence and marginalize his critics by forcing staff, and even interns, to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements and revoking, or threatening to revoke, the security clearances of former administration officials. His administration has also proposed to dramatically limit the right to protest near the White House and on the National Mall.

And Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t stand for the freedom of the press. When he was a presidential candidate, he told supporters he would “open up our libel laws” to sue journalists. “We’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” he promised.

Now tell me who is tyrant adjacent? There’s nothing even close to touching this from any other administration -right, left, or otherwise.

Expand full comment

It was Obama who selected seven Muslim majority countries suggesting flights from them should be banned due to terrorism concerns. Trump’s administration just tried to implement Obama’s agenda in that regard. As for freedom of the press, of course it’s not absolute. Example when they falsely promote the lie of a Catholic boy harassing a Native American by SMILING as the old man banged a drum in his face. There are MANY other examples where the press knowingly promoted lies to achieve the leftist agenda which you seem to have an affinity for. When these lies cause harm, yes the press can and should be liable for it. BTW in a sense I wish Trump would retire to a cushy life; I’d vote for RFK Jr. But you my friend have TDS, and I hope you recover soon because sooner or later the leftist tribe you affiliate with will roll over you. They always do.

Expand full comment

Executive Order 13769, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, labeled the "Muslim ban" by Donald Trump and his aides and critics, and commonly known as such, or commonly referred to as the Trump travel ban, was an executive order by US President Donald Trump.

Expand full comment

Also, I don’t have TDS. I just can’t stand him as a human. I never could. Long before he ever ran for president. He’s piece of shit. Full stop. I’m also not part of a leftist tribe. Hence why I’ve been a paid subscriber to Matt since he moved over here. Not since Twitter files like the majority of commenters. I do realize that sociopaths/narcissists are drawn to positions of power so I don’t pledge allegiance or get really enthusiastic about anyone running for office.

Expand full comment

I would argue that GWB did a lot more to undermine civil liberties than Trump. But that's mostly down to Trump's incompetence, I think. His rhetoric implies he would go much further than Bush.

Expand full comment

100 percent. That GWB surrounded himself with people who knew how to get things done in Washington (especially Cheney) made all the difference. That and they were all war humpers. If Trump was intelligent or had he surrounded himself with intelligent people who knew how to get things done, we would have been much worse off domestically. Luckily his administration were mostly numbskulls looking for an easy grift.

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

Grifters, yes, but also some people actively trying to thwart Trump's insane agenda because they could clearly see how bonkers he is (probably a lot of overlap between those two camps, honestly).

I know it doesn't match perfectly, but I enjoy the image of Steve Bannon as Trump's derpy Cheney stand-in. The GOPOTUS-whisperer role devolved from Dick "I shot someone in the face and got away with it" Cheney, to Steve "what's wrong with wearing 4 shirts at the same time?" Bannon.

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/0dd/f19/2c20c25239b2eb1dc74a9c064edff5562b-steve.rsquare.w700.jpg

https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/01/sloppysteve_dailynews.jpg

Expand full comment

No First Amendment in Russia. The New York Times would approve.

Expand full comment

And so would the permanent government in DC.

Expand full comment

Russia is saving free speech by regulating it.

Expand full comment

So is Canada. Only pro-Liberal Gov’t permitted.

Expand full comment

The world is run by thugs

Expand full comment

Or as a feline commenter noted. Not just thugs. But sociopaths.

Expand full comment

I use the terms interchangeable. The sociopaths send their thugs to do their dirty work

Expand full comment

I was concerned reading the first sentence and initially read "FSB" as "FBI"

I wouldn't be shocked

Expand full comment
founding

A distinction without a difference.

Expand full comment

dammit, I wish I had said that

Expand full comment
founding

You did, more or less.

Expand full comment

That's because you're a moron. The FBI doesn't do things like that. Name me even a single comparable case.

Expand full comment

boy howdy, you seem pleasant

Chuck S., is that you?

Expand full comment

Consider this: you're baselessly disparaging a whole organization (the FBI) as comparable to the FSB (a murderous totalitarian institution of control and dominance). But *I'm* unpleasant?

Get your head out of your ass, please.

Expand full comment

Damn. Good luck and I hope it works out well for Boris.

Expand full comment

Meanwhile in America, if you stand up to your local school board you may be labeled a "domestic terrorist" and is this what happens next? Democrats will soon be indistinguishable from totalitarians.

Expand full comment

During the Biden administration, the Department Of Homeland Security issued a notice that made me, a science-nerd little old retired lady living in Utah, an official domestic terrorist because I posted some scientific studies questioning the mainstream narrative on Covid vaccines ("malinformation"). So I might argue that Democrats are already indistinguishable from totalitarians.

Expand full comment

Evidence or it's bullshit.

Expand full comment

to·tal·i·tar·i·an | tōˌtaləˈterēən |

adjective

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state: a totalitarian regime. [one of the listed synonyms is authoritarian]

Or if you mean evidence of "malinformation" being considered terrorism, see https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022. Originally I had this in the form of a more readable chart, but I can't locate that right now. Malinformation is to defined as something true but in their opinion is "misused". Purveyors of MDM (mis-, dis-, and mal-information) are considered to be domestic terrorists.

An interesting analysis of all this is an investigative journalist testifying to Congress. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20230511/115901/HHRG-118-HM09-Wstate-WeingartenB-20230511.pdf

A particularly good quote: 'CISA has defined “Misinformation” as that which “is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.” It has defined “Disinformation” as that which “is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.” It has defined “Malinformation” as that which “is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.” See: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mdm-incident-response-guide_508.pdf.

'Setting aside the question of who is to be the arbiter of truth in CISA’s MDM paradigm, on what grounds, and whether and to what extent government ought to intervene accordingly, the matter of intent baked into these definitions makes MDM a largely subjective concept.'

Expand full comment

Where exactly does DHS define disinformation as terrorism?

It's a sizeable document, but what stands out to me is this:

"The primary terrorism-related threat to the United States continues to stem from lone offenders or small cells of individuals who are motivated by a range of foreign and/or domestic grievances often cultivated through the consumption of certain online content."

They're not claiming that people who spread or consume disinformation *are* terrorists, just that "lone offenders" can become radicalized by consuming it, and end up as terrorists. This is just as true of ISIS members radicalized on Twitter as it would be of a right-wing terrorist who attacks a CIA building because he thinks they're part of a breakaway civilization or whatever.

This kind of sloppy equivocation is exactly why most people don't take "weaponization of government" claims seriously. If you really care about this issue, please consider taking it a bit more seriously, cutting out the hyperbole, and focusing on real abuses of power (which aren't hard to find if you live in reality and not a fantasy Fox News funhouse mirror)

Expand full comment

Your dismissive tone makes it really hard to be patient. They define malinformation, which can be true but used for ends that they don't approve of, as terrorism. You didn't read it very carefully.

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

"They define malinformation, which can be true but used for ends that they don't approve of, as terrorism."

Where?

"You didn't read it very carefully."

No, and I believe I made that fairly clear. If I made a habit of reading the entirety of every document linked to me by everyone on the internet, I would do nothing but that every hour of every day.

You claim that DHS classifies you as a terrorist, which is quite a bold claim. So, where *specifically* is that classification? Just throwing a document at me and saying "you find it yourself" smacks of deflection.

I'm dismissive of your claim, because it fits the bill of shoddy political hyperbole that I see all over this comment board, and the internet more broadly. If you're not willing to do the work of presenting your evidence in a digestible format, then quite frankly it's a waste of my time.

Expand full comment

They pretty much already ARE.

Expand full comment

What does "totalitarian" mean to you?

Expand full comment

A totalitarian government is one that works to take power from the citizen unto itself. That has been happening on multiple fronts with this administration, from dictating appliance features, to automobiles, to light bulbs, to education, to sports, to medicine, to parental control, etc.

Expand full comment

Then it's understandable that you're confused about what qualifies as totalitarian.

"relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state"

Not really the same thing. The key word is "total" -- a form of government that exacts total control over every aspect of its citizens' lives. Not some control, not too much control, but *total* control. That is not happening, nobody prominent in the U.S. political system is *suggesting* that we should move in that direction, and nothing being done currently by the U.S. govt. even begins to approach that standard.

Expand full comment

A distinction without a difference. That’s what they are working towards. No offense but it’s their actions that bely your words.

Expand full comment

Can you explain that viewpoint in a bit more detail? I'm not seeing any evidence that Democrats, or anyone else with real political power, are working toward totalitarian control in the US.

Expand full comment

If you threaten members of your local school board you are labeled a domestic terrorist

Expand full comment

Pls let us know if there is any way to contribute to his family or to add our voices and support to any opposition movement. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Oh no. Will add him to my prayers. Lord have mercy.

Expand full comment

Prayers? Oh boy, Putin must be trembling in his boots!

Expand full comment

Let him. Prayer is the most powerful force on earth. Especially when multiple people are praying. See the seventh seal in Revelation.

Expand full comment

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and slap that with a "false" label.

Very mysterious how prayer only works when it works. It's almost like you've shot the arrow and then drawn a target around it.

God doesn't exist, prayer doesn't do anything but make you feel better, and people like you are what's wrong with America. Good night, folks.

Expand full comment
Aug 2, 2023·edited Aug 2, 2023

Things like this show that the people who accuse you of somehow advancing Putin's interests with your reporting and commentary are actively stupid and deeply dishonest. It's not passive ignorance. They have to work hard to be that actively stupid and dishonest.

I can't think of anyone else who has provided a similar platform for Russian dissenters, let alone try to provide legal aid in a circumstance such as this. I hope Mr. Kagarlitsky is promptly released with no harm coming to him or his family.

Expand full comment

I notice that you aren't presenting any examples of what people accuse Matt of *doing*, which is very convenient when you're accusing others of willful dishonesty.

Matt creates false equivalence between the US and Russian systems (frequently comparing the FBI and the Biden admin to Soviet institutions, for example). He rationalizes and equivocates on Russia's wars of conquest, and flatly denies the obvious connections and mutual interests between Trump and Putin.

Nobody (that I'm aware of) is accusing Matt of being consistently pro-Russia or pro-Putin. Flacking for him in US media, and defending RT (literally a state-run propaganda outlet) are certainly "advancing Putin's interests", though, as you put it. Not to mention, attacking the Democratic party relentlessly on shaky grounds, which has the clear effect of advancing Putin's interests in US domestic politics.

How does it feel to be "that actively stupid and dishonest" that you would miss such obvious red flags?

Expand full comment

Awful. Unfortunately, not too different from the treatment that Trump is getting from our government, except the imprisonment will be "lawful." In the meantime, the Biden family just keeps getting richer...

Expand full comment

Not too different from how Trump treated journalists only he didn’t have the power to arrest them so he had to settle for calling them the enemy of the people, suing them,demeaning them and getting his followers so riled up against them that they needed security.

Expand full comment

Bullshit. Kagarlitsky's detainment was unjust, clearly, but perfectly "lawful" from the perspective of the Russian system.

Trump's indictments are both lawful and just. He committed crimes, which he clearly knew were crimes, and which he had no reasonable justification for.

It's also laughable to me that you paint the *Bidens* as profiteering off his government position. Remember that time when Saudia Arabia paid $2bn to Jared Kushner?

Idiot.

Expand full comment

NEWS FROM 2024:

"Matt Taibbi, a soft-spoken journalist dedicated to free speech and the first amendment, was arrested today, and removed to a facility that's frankly no one's business but the government. The offense is not adhering to the elite narrative and "provoking terrorism,” via a short article he wrote on Racket News last year."

Expand full comment

I think this is the reason the presidential election matters...judicial appointments. Yes the Repubs are, as a group, dimwits. However, if their party controls the judges that are appointed from the circuit on up it usually, not always, results in fewer judges who ignore the constitution and this is important.

Expand full comment
founding

The upcoming presidential election is what it is all about. It is so obvious that the goal is to perfect the election infrastructure so that a non-Democratic Party candidate will NEVER be the President.

I have not read the latest indictment. Is there an allegation that questioning election results out loud to others is the basis for a criminal charge based on federal statutory law? Yes, make it criminal to question the election process or election results. Here in Illinois when they are still counting incoming ballots two weeks after the polls "close," I guess I will just have to feel blessed to live in such a free and democratic state.

Expand full comment

No the indictment doesn’t say Trump couldn’t question the election results out loud or being lawsuits or demand recounts.

Expand full comment

That will sound much less witty when it actually happens. Matt was already threatened with years in prison for "lying to Congress," which is a warning to self-censor selectively. Will he do it, First Amendment and all?

Expand full comment

Maybe you're aware of this, but it's actually illegal to lie to Congress. Michael Cohen served time in prison for it.

I agree that was an unnecessarily aggressive move by Stacey Plaskett, but Matt is actively misleading the American public about the relationship between the federal government and private corporations, and when those lies are brought into the context of a Congressional hearing... the law applies. What can I say?

And no, it's never going to happen. Keep jacking it to that political persecution fantasy, though.

Expand full comment

Yeah, or not.

Anyway, it's not like you have a reputation to be damaged when this inevitably fails to happen. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Expand full comment

God forbid!

Expand full comment

I literally started writing something similar.

Expand full comment

Thoughtful reader, not thoughtful writer, I guess.

Expand full comment

Certainly wish him well but all I can think is, "coming to a democracy near you..."

Expand full comment

Democracy? Where? Can’t see that. I hear it, especially from the Autocrats but just saying the word is meaningless.

Expand full comment

On the internet, nobody knows you're a moron.

The idea of multiple autocrats ruling the same political system is a contradiction in terms. Why use words you don't even know the meanings of?

Expand full comment

Yes, as soon as Trump comes back into office.

He's the only POTUS I'm aware of who openly called for the jailing of journalists for criticizing him. And who can forget "lock her up"?

Expand full comment

Let us know if there is a way to support Boris!

Expand full comment

Funny trump was indicted fornthe same thing.... liberals are more like putin everyday

Expand full comment

Which indictment was that?

I'm only aware of indictments for attempting to defraud the government and overturn an election, campaign finance violations, and stealing classified documents and lying / hiding and destroying evidence. None of those seem particularly similar to Kagarlitsky's case.

Expand full comment

I know its a stretch but jailing ones opponent is the simillarity. Using laws never used before (new york), using laws not used in 100 years (jan 6) and using questionable theory in presedential power and raiding the house (fla) are poor optics at best.

Keep sticking your head in the sand while 80 million people get angrier and angrier.

Expand full comment
Aug 3, 2023·edited Aug 3, 2023

It's not a stretch, it's a completely different case.

Trump committed crimes, and serious ones at that. None of your equivocations nullify that fact. Any other citizen who committed those crimes should expect to be jailed; it's how the system is *ideally supposed to work*. More importantly, when you look at the specifics of Trump's crimes, they're all things you would *really* hope the government wouldn't let slide:

- Campaign finance violations (one of the only systems standing between us and total oligarchic control)

- Intentionally stealing and retaining highly sensitive classified documents related to things like invasion plans and nuclear secrets

- Intentionally destroying evidence of same

- Conspiring to defraud the government and obstruct justice

- Conspiring to illegally nullify lawfully-cast votes toward the goal of thwarting a democratic election ("conspiracy against rights" is how the indictment puts it)

"a stretch" doesn't begin to describe the insantiy of equating that to a journalist doing their job. In what universe would a functioning government ignore those blatant acts of high criminality?

edit to add: it's worth noting that, to this day, Trump walks free despite being indicted repeatedly. Kagarlitsky, on the other hand, was shipped straight to the gulag.

Expand full comment

Facts are different, intent is the same. Hold other accoubtable to things you wont hold yoir own party.

- a server containing 100s of classified materials - destroyed and bleached

- 1 billion dolar foundation formed amd unfettered payments across the globe to the sec of state ..aspiring president

- confidential dicuments located in multiple locations of current president from days as sentaor and vp

- 32 million dollars pf payments split between son father and family of president of us from china, ukraine and russia

- a 3 year failed investigation into presendent from fbi that started under false pretences

You may believe the system is working as it should but based on polls a minimum of 80 million people strongly disagree with you.

Expand full comment

BuT wHaT aBoUt HiLlArY's EmAiLs???/?/?/

In all seriousness, what a load of horseshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

- Server containing 100s of classified documents: Believe it or not, I *will* criticize Hillary for that. I think she's a snake and I don't approve of most of her actions in general.

I don't think, however, that mishandling documents *in the pursuit of your role as Secretary of State* is remotely the same as stealing said documents *for personal use*. It's an obvious and substantial distinction.

- 1 billion dol[l]ar foundation: See above. I'm no fan of the Clinton foundation, for exactly the reasons you outlined, but that doesn't make it ILLEGAL, which is what Trump's actions were.

- Confidential d[o]cuments retained in Biden's possession: Three important distinctions: 1. Biden didn't intentionally steal the documents (at least it doesn't appear that way - in fact it's not even clear he personally knew of their existence); 2. Biden didn't attempt to illegally retain those documents once it became clear he had them; and 3. Biden's aides proactively informed the government they had the documents, as opposed to Trump who lied and hid evidence to pretend he didn't have them.

Equating those two is complete bullshit and you know it.

- 32 million dollar of payments split between son father and family from (etc): Bullshit. Where's the evidence? That's a Republican wet dream, not something that actually happened.

- 3 year failed investigation into pres[i]dent: in what sense did it fail? Would you prefer the FBI keep looking until they "found" something?

It's not like there was no smoke to imply a fire - Trump's Nation Security Adviser was arrested and sentenced as a follow-on consequence of acting as an agent of the fucking Russian government, for crying out loud. Think about that for a minute... Trump's National Security Adviser was working for the Russian government. I would say that investigation was well-merited.

---

I never said the system is working as it should in general, just that Trump being prosecuted for his crimes is one specific instance where it is.

I'm not sure where you're getting that 80 million number, but any number of Americans are perfectly entitled to be morons if that suits them, yourself included.

Expand full comment

You are ignoring the fact that i listed multiple rhings that were ignored by the same system you said is working well. The same system that has lied repeatedly on collusions , laptop and others.

You can idict a ham sandwhich is the famous saying.

Im not saying anyone is guilty or innocent im saying the perception and trend is not on the side of a clean justice department.

Simply ask this, if trump started a 1 billion dollar non profit that was getting money all over the world would it be praised or indicted

Thats what i thought

Expand full comment

"Our world grows more ridiculous by the hour.": Yes it does. We are all "J-6 ers" now. Dissent is considered treason and you WILL be punished harshly. I wish your acquaintance the best. Putin must be as frantic as Pelosi was when she and her cronies fenced the American people off Capitol Hill and called in the armed forces to "protect" them from the rest of us.

Expand full comment

Trump was literally indicted for dissent thoughts. We are truly doomed.

Expand full comment

Literally incorrect. Trump was indicted for, among other things, attempting to defraud the government. Fraud is not "thoughts".

Expand full comment

The State has to prove this. Should be interesting.

Expand full comment

Something tells me they won't have much difficulty, given Trump's tendency to publicly confess to his crimes.

Expand full comment

The ESTABLISHMENT needs an overhaul. This bullying cannot go on.

Expand full comment
founding

The establishment needs an enema.

Expand full comment

Let's not bring your fetishes into this, thanks.

Expand full comment

The Russian establishment, you mean? On that, I think we agree, at least.

Also, the idea that disappearing a journalist would be referred to as "bullying"... lol

Expand full comment